Environmental pollution and environmental inequity have been widely acknowledged to have negative effects on a community’s physical and socioeconomic health. But should environmental racism be addressed as a source of mental health challenges in affected communities? Studies show that communities facing higher levels of environmental toxins – often due to long-standing environmental racism – report higher rates of mental illness, suggesting a relationship between environmental and social factors. Additionally, communities of color are faced with other forms of systemic racism that further damage their mental health. These environmental and systemic factors are tightly interwoven, increasing their negative impact. Addressing environmental racism through adequate mental health care in affected areas and equitable urban planning could lead to improved mental health in marginalized communities.
Environmental injustice is typically experienced through heightened exposure to pollution and through limited access to adequate environmental services. This can be due to industrialization, waste facilities, or lack of greenspace in dense urban planning. According to the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems, “Although people of color make up 42% of the overall population of the U.S., they are 52% of the population in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution, and 63% of the residents in counties with the worst air quality” (Environmental Justice). Communities of color are more likely to experience chronic and acute health conditions as a result of hazardous air and water quality. Poor physical health is likely to lead to worsened mental health and lowered overall community morale. However, physiological health factors aside, environment alone can lead to a decrease in quality of mental health.
Looking at micro and macro elements of environment and mental health, researchers at the University of Oslo, in a study of 31,000 participants, reported, “Our findings support the notion that environmental characteristics are related to population mental health in distinct ways and are also intricately linked with each other. Multiple environmental factors, such as experiencing problems with noise or contamination, crime, violence, or vandalism in the residential area, and worrying about violence or threats when walking outside and alone, had notable connectedness in the networks” (Bjørndal). While all of these metrics don’t directly have to do with the natural environment, it’s important to note that they highlight the interconnectedness of these factors. Though, the results of Bjørndal’s background studies note the direct link between pollution, greenspace, and mental health: “Noise annoyance and traffic noise have been linked to anxiety and depressive symptoms in both prospective and cross-sectional studies. Air pollution was associated with increased risk of common mental disorders in a recent longitudinal study. Conversely, more neighborhood greenspace has been related to lower depressive symptoms” (Bjørndal). So both concepts of ‘environment’ can be shown to be independent and interconnected factors in reduced mental health. Less greenspace means less safe walkable space. Less safe walkable space leads to more crime and violence, leading people to stay home (where they may be exposed to various pollutants). People staying in leads to less utilization of greenspace and the cycle continues. All of these can play a role in depressive symptoms and other health conditions.
The brief mention of availability of greenspace in the aforementioned study should not be overlooked. Yes, communities of color are subjected to greater noise, air, water, and light pollution, which can all have a negative impact on physical and mental health. But these communities also have less available greenspace – parks and natural areas – which can lead to a further decrease in mental health. Just the act of being outside, away from the concrete jungle, in a more natural environment, has been shown to have positive health effects. In a forty-year longitudinal study, University of Canterbury researchers found that access to greenspace resulted in an 8-12% decrease in depression and anxiety symptoms in adults (Deng). With the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and an understaffed system that produces inadequate results (Grant et al), if an increase in urban greenspace could contribute to a decrease in depression and anxiety – or an increase in overall health – it seems like incorporating more greenspaces would be a financially effective and labor-minded solution. Of course, there’s more to it than just building more parks. They have to be utilized and kept free from crime and vandalism. To which, some might say to increase the police presence – but that gets deeper into the systemic racism part of the problem. The police harass people for being in the public space, the residents don’t feel safe being there, people not using the space leads to a decrease in community involvement, which leads to a decrease in prosperity, which leads to an increase in crime, and so on.
Therefore, the mindset around designing greenspace and equitable environmental justice must take place on a community level, not a bureaucratic level. Many already-disadvantaged communities are underrepresented in local government. And simply plopping down a few parks in some unused lots wouldn’t sufficiently meet the needs of the community. Danny Hastings writes for Close Up, a Washington D.C. civic education organization, “A park can serve as a great equalizer in a community—a place where all people can interact with each other regardless of age, race, socioeconomic status, or ability. It’s a place meant to be utilized and enjoyed by all, not just a few. Green spaces add to the civic health of a community by serving as meeting spots where people can come together in recreation and celebration, where they hold vigils and stage protests, and where they enjoy the company of others and escape the world for a moment” (Hastings). While Deborah Cohen and cohorts elaborated on park usage in a survey of park patrons and personnel for the National Institute of Health, “The observation of organized activities, whether or not they were sponsored by the park itself, appeared to be responsible for attracting the most people” (Cohen). That is, there are secondary mental health benefits of green spaces beyond their mere existence, but they have to be actively used. Civic engagement and group activities can lead to a further decrease in depression and anxiety symptoms, as well as a stronger sense of community. One might think that the lack of these community spaces could be part of the systemic racism in government. What better way to oppress a community but to deny them access to clean, safe places to gather?
In fact, systemic racism itself has been shown to have negative mental health effects. In a study that highlights the ‘cascading effects of racism’, researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin show the again-interconnected facets of environmental injustice and racial injustice, “Results further demonstrate that the cumulative burden of racism across several levels is associated with poorer mental health. The cumulative multi-level impact of racism, demonstrated by analysis of the Social and Environmental Adversity factor, had the strongest relationship with greater PTSS, anxiety, and depression symptoms reinforcing the impact of multi-level conceptualizations” (Tomas et al). It appears that communities of color are having their mental health bombarded from all sides. Overt and covert racism, environmental health hazards, lack of green and community spaces, all of which independently contribute to poor mental health. But when their powers combine, they become Super Depression™. And a depressed, anxious community is a complacent, easily oppressed, community.
But wait, there’s more. With all of these contributing factors to mental illness, the laws of supply and demand would mean these communities have easy access to mental health care, right? No. In a study on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Mental Health Care, Thomas McGuire of Harvard Medical School and Jeanne Miranda from UCLA find, “Racial and ethnic minorities have less access to mental health services than do whites, are less likely to receive needed care and are more likely to receive poor quality care when treated. Minorities in the United States are more likely than whites to delay or fail to seek mental health treatment. After entering care, minority patients are less likely than Whites to receive the best available treatments for depression and anxiety” (McGuire and Miranda). The communities most in need of these services, who have the most contributing environmental factors to their need, have the least access to them.
But it’s not just about access to mental health services, though, surely, that could provide some temporary relief. With communities structured around industrialization, waste dumps, and other pollutants, and their lack of natural community spaces, the solution would require an entire retooling of the entire residential-industrial system. Robert Figueroa writes of University of Illinois professor Peter Wenz’s essay Just Garbage, “[Wenz] proposes to distribute environmental burdens to those who consume the most and who enjoy the most environmental benefits, particularly the most affluent communities in the United States. Wenz argues that this policy would lead the most politically influential citizens to dramatically reduce consumption and/or abate the impact of industrial pollution. Wenz’s insight is that it is unjust— even if currently legal—to channel noxious wastes and pollutants to economically disenfranchised populations who do not deserve to suffer burdens imposed by the high consumption levels that others enjoy. Wenz projects that redistributing the waste to those enjoying commensurable benefits would eliminate approximately 70 percent of the environmental racism in the United States” (Figueroa). This sounds like an idealistic solution in today’s political world. Those with the money and influence, those with lobbying power, would be able to easily out finance campaigns for preferential treatment, while the economically and politically disadvantaged would have little recourse. Carbon credits aren’t equitable. Even if laws were passed requiring placement of pollution creators in more affluent areas, those who could afford it would just move. A more reasonable solution that takes all interests into account would be, for example, the placement of facilities in undeveloped areas and the addition better public transportation infrastructure. Then, as it tends to go, developers build high-density residential in those once-rural areas and rent them out to workers, who are exposed to pollutants, and we start the whole cycle again. So there isn’t one easy solution, especially with the cyclical nature of the problems, but a whole array of ideas that would need to be interconnected in the same way that the negative effects are interconnected.
Not only does environmental racism create negative physical health effects, but it can be shown to have a positive correlation to mental illness. The physiological harms can certainly lead to a decrease in mental health, but environmental hazards can have a direct effect on mental health. Additionally, the environmental injustice of having less access to greenspace can lead to a negative impact on both physical and mental health, as well as secondary negative effects, like decreased community involvement and civic-mindedness. With contemporary focus on mental health, it’s imperative that communities of color – those with the highest occurrence of mental illness – be provided equitable access to a clean environment and community spaces that can contribute to primary and secondary benefits to their mental health, as well as access to actual treatment for mental illness.

Works Cited
Bjørndal, Ludvig Daae, et al. “Mental Health and Environmental Factors in Adults: A Population-Based Network Analysis.” American Psychologist, vol. 79, no. 3, Mar. 2024, pp. 368–83. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.oregonstate.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/amp0001208.
Cohen, Deborah A et al. “Parks and physical activity: why are some parks used more than others?.” Preventive medicine vol. 50 Suppl 1,Suppl 1 (2010): S9-12. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.020
Deng, B. et al. “Life in Green: Associations Between Greenspace Availability and Mental Health Over the Lifecourse”. Environment International, vol 195, January 2025. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024008109, Accessed 30 May 2025.
“Environmental Justice Factsheet”. University of Michigan, Center for Sustainable Systems, 2024, Pub. No. CSS17-16. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/environmental-justice-factsheet, Accessed 30 May 2025.
Figueroa, Robert Melchior. “Environmental Justice.” Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, edited by J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman, vol. 1, Macmillan Reference USA, 2009, pp. 341-348. Gale In Context: Environmental Studies, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3234100116/GRNR?u=s8405248&sid=bookmark-GRNR&xid=1ae25505. Accessed 25 May 2025.
Grant, Kiran L., et al. “Three Nontraditional Approaches to Improving the Capacity, Accessibility, and Quality of Mental Health Services: An Overview.” Psychiatric Services, vol. 69, no. 5, American Psychiatric Publishing, May 2018, pp. 508–516, https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201700292, Accessed 26 May 2025.
Hastings, Danny. “Public Parks and Community Green Spaces”. Close Up, Close Up Foundation, 1 June 2022. https://www.closeup.org/public-parks-and-community-green-spaces/, Accessed 30 May 2025.
McGuire, Thomas G, and Jeanne Miranda. “New evidence regarding racial and ethnic disparities in mental health: policy implications.” Health affairs (Project Hope) vol. 27,2 (2008): 393-403. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3928067/, Accessed 30 May 2025.
Tomas, C. W., et al. “Social and Environmental Adversity Predict Poor Mental Health in a Milwaukee, WI Community Sample.” Social Science & Medicine (1982), vol. 373, May 2025, p. 118015. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.oregonstate.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118015. Accessed 30 May 2025.